On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:29:49 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 13-8-2009 18:33, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> I'm of the opinion that attempts to "convert" someone to your religion
>> does not fall under protected speech, and further, it infringes on
>> others rights of freedom of religion.
>> 
>> http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-aaron1-wed-candy-cane-trial-
story,0,3441616.story
>> 
>> http://www.ccnews.org/index.php?
mod=Story&action=show&id=1580&countryid=0&stateid=0
>> 
>> 
> What I am missing in the info is what the message was and why the school
> noticed. 

I don't think the message content is important, generally.

> The fact that they did notice suggests that it was very
> obvious, probably so much so that it was very likely that the parents
> were using the children for their own evangelical purpose. If that was
> the case I think the school was right in protecting these children (and
> the others) from their parents.*

You're right, you probably didn't mean that.  The reasons why the kid was 
distributing the messages aren't particularly important.

> Free speech is only an issue if it was a public school. IANAL but I
> assume that, just as here, such rules are only between a person and a
> government not between individuals.
> 
> It would be also interesting to know if these parents would allow
> teachers to tell the kids that they have homosexual relationships.

That's a totally different issue.  Teachers are in a position of 
authority and need to be careful what they're doing because they 
represent not only themselves as individuals, but also "the state" in 
public schools.  There are very clear guidelines that cover what "the 
state" isn't allowed to promote, not only at the national level, but at a 
local level too.

It's like me giving a professional reference for people I work with - I'm 
not permitted to do that because it might reflect on my employer 
"endorsing" a particular partner over another.  I can provide a personal 
reference, but it has to be clear that it is such and that I'm speaking 
for myself and not for my employer.

> I think in the Dutch context (which is very different that the US's) I
> would not have a problem with children expressing their believe as long
> as it does not interfere with the teaching.

That's what I think, too.

> *I probably did not mean that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message